After this, he might not sleep so well anymore!

Via Upworthy:

After hearing Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries express his desire of not wanting larger-sized women or "not so cool" kids wearing his brand, this guy decided to fight back. He helps a group of people who could really use the clothes that Jeffries tries so hard to keep out of the hands of people he doesn't deem worthy. Check under the video for other ways in which you can help the homeless.

Click on these to find out more about how you can help:

Horizons for Homeless Children

5 Simple Ways to Help the Homeless

National Coalition for the Homeless

In yet another disgusting episode of "Too Big to Fail," this time from the NYT:

"Government investigators have found that JPMorgan Chase devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” and that one of its most senior executives gave “false and misleading statements” under oath."

Yes, we're all shocked...again.

"The findings appear in a confidential government document, reviewed by The New York Times, that was sent to the bank in March, warning of a potential crackdown by the regulator of the nation’s energy markets."

What's with the secrecy? As if we don't know that we're being screwed by the banks.

"The possible action comes amid showdowns with other agencies. One of the bank’s chief regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is weighing new enforcement actions against JPMorgan over the way the bank collected credit card debt and its possible failure to alert authorities to suspicions about Bernard L. Madoff, according to people who were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly."

Suuuure they are.

"In a meeting last month at the bank’s Park Avenue headquarters, the comptroller’s office delivered an unusually stark message to Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman: the nation’s biggest bank was quickly losing credibility in Washington. The bank’s top lawyers, including Stephen M. Cutler, the general counsel, have also cautioned executives about the bank’s regulatory problems, employees say."

Good Lord. A banker losing credibility in Washington! I'm shocked that Jamie Dimon has any credibility left to lose.

So, what exactly is the Big Bank in trouble for this time?

Continue reading »

On Monday's Majority Report with Sam Seder, Matt Taibbi explains the myth of JP Morgan Chase as the “one good bank”, why too big to fail is the problem, why Washington is finally getting fed up with Wall Street, how Wall Street miscalculated the 2012 election, how JP Morgan Chase hides losses and commits regular acts of financial fraud and is genuine Wall Street reform possible now?

JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon greeted with noisy protests as he prepared to testify before the Senate Banking Committee in 2012. "This man is a crook and needs to go to jail!" yelled one man.

A new Senate report shows that last year JPMorgan Chase, the country's biggest bank, manipulated documents and ignored internal controls as they built up trading losses. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive, also withheld information from regulators. The 300-page report was released the day before the Senate plans to question bank leaders and regulators at a hearing, and "it may also foreshadow a criminal case against employees at the heart of the troubled wager," according to the NYT. “While we have repeatedly acknowledged significant mistakes, our senior management acted in good faith and never had any intent to mislead anyone," a spokeswoman for the bank said.

NYT:

Mr. Dimon, whose reputation as an astute manager of risk has been undercut by the trading losses, comes under the harshest criticism yet from the Senate investigators. The chief executive signed off on changes to an internal alarm system that underestimated losses, seemingly contradicting his earlier statements to lawmakers, according to the report.

He is also accused of withholding from regulators details about the investment bank’s daily losses — and then raising “his voice in anger” at a deputy who later turned over the information.

While people close to the matter dispute whether the outburst actually happened, it illustrates a broader problem at JPMorgan: after emerging from the financial crisis in far better shape than rivals, the bank saw itself as being above its regulators. The bank was so filled with hubris, Senate investigators said, that an executive once screamed at examiners and called them “stupid.”

The bipartisan report, citing some of the same private documents that F.B.I. agents are now poring over, also highlighted how JPMorgan managers “pressured” traders to lowball losses by $660 million, a previously undisclosed figure, and then played down the problems to authorities.

With this line from the Times' report, you may start to think that the "too big to fail" could be falling..."After examining hundreds of e-mails and hours of taped phone calls, the people said, federal investigators also plan to interview top JPMorgan executives in the coming weeks, including Mr. Dimon."

But then the next line is a big let down, "While authorities do not suspect the chief executive of wrongdoing, the meetings signal that the case is at an advanced stage."

What a charade.

There is one highlight to come from this; Beginning at 9:30am Friday, Matt Taibbi will be live-blogging a hearing held by Senator Carl Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who will be grilling J.P. Morgan Chase executives and high-ranking federal regulators in a get-together entitled, "J.P. Morgan Chase "Whale" Trades: A Case History Of Derivatives Risks And Abuses." Bring your popcorn and be there.

JPMorgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon won’t be reaping any benefits from the bank’s third consecutive year of record profits. Dimon’s pay will be cut by more than half, the company revealed in an internal report that blamed him for at least $6.2 billion in losses from the “London Whale” trade. Dimon will take home $11.5 million in 2012, including his $1.5 million salary and $10 million in restricted stock—roughly half of his 2011 haul of $23 million. The bank pointed out Dimon’s “egregious mistakes” in the chief investment office that resulted in the Whale flop, for which he “bears ultimate responsibility.”

Via:

Dimon said he "respected" the board's decision, in which he did not participate.

"This was one huge, embarrassing mistake," he said in a Wednesday morning conference call.

Gee, how will the poor man survive?

“Thank you” really doesn’t mean what it used to. After paying back $182 billion in bailout money -- and running an ad campaign (See Youtube video above) saying “Thank you America” -- insurance company American International Group is considering whether it should sue the government. A.I.G. is mulling the idea of joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit. The suit states that the government cheated shareholders of billions of dollars and disregarded the rule that you shouldn’t take private property for “public use, without just compensation” (the Fifth Amendment). How did the government do that? By taking a 92 percent stake in the company and, you know, saving it.

NYT:

The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”

Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chief executive, who remains a major investor in the company, filed the lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of fellow shareholders. He has since urged A.I.G. to join the case, a move that could nudge the government into settlement talks.
...

Some government officials are already upset with the company for even seriously entertaining the lawsuit, people briefed on the matter said. The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that without the bailout, A.I.G. shareholders would have fared far worse in bankruptcy.

“On the one hand, from a corporate governance perspective, it appears they’re being extra cautious and careful,” said Frank Partnoy, a former banker who is now a professor of law and finance at the University of San Diego School of Law. “On the other hand, it’s a slap in the face to the taxpayer and the government.”

This should be a lesson that is never forgotten. If there's ever a "next time," bailout the taxpayers so that they can all keep their homes.

Apparently, Wal-mart CEO Mike Duke isn't getting the message from all those employee protests over pay and benefits.

During an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Bloomberg LP President Dan Doctoroff asked Duke about Wal-Mart employee wages, and noted that "New York is claiming that wages, you know, aren't adequate for that middle-class or emerging middle-class."

Duke claims that Wal-Mart's over 2 million employees earn "competitive wages."

"Retailing is the most competitive industry out there, and we do pay competitive wages," Duke said. "Last year we promoted 165,000 people from entry-level to managerial positions."

Duke added that Walmart provides health insurance to 1 million people in the United States.

But he said he's used to all the criticism.

"With more success comes more responsibility and expectations from the public," Duke said. "So I'm thrilled to be in a position where people expect more of me."

Duke has been CEO since February 2009. According to Forbes, his compensation was $18.7 million last year.

If Duke is comparing Wal-Mart's wages to say Target, sure, maybe they're competitive. And as for the health insurance, I wonder if that is being "provided" to the less than 50% of Wal-Mart employees or simply "offered"? As many employees can't afford their share of the expense for the plans on their low wages

Note, too, that Duke didn't really respond to Doctoroff's question of "adequate" wages. How could Duke, who received a base salary of about $1.2 million and a performance-based bonus of nearly $3.9 million in 2010, possibly truthfully say those employee wages were adequate?

As CEO Duke spoke, Wal-Mart employees stood outside protesting their treatment at work.

When: Tuesday, December 11 @ 4:30pm
Where: Harold Pratt House, 58 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10065
RSVP on Facebook

Just weeks after the massive demonstration of the #WalmartStrikers Black Friday day of action, Walmart CEO Mike Duke is visiting NYC on Tuesday, Dec. 11 to give a speech for the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "The Responsibility to Lead" - talking about women's economic empowerment, food security & the global middle class.

That's ironic, since Walmart represents the epitome of corporate greed: from use of sweatshop labor, to the poverty wages it pays associates, to discrimination, to illegal retaliation against workers who organize. Mike Duke has no right to speak about the "global middle class", and IT'S TIME WE TAUGHT HIM THE MEANING OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Join ALIGN, 99 Pickets, Walmart Free NYC, Occupy Bergen County, Retail Action Project, MoneyOut/VotersIn, and allies for an afternoon of action -- picket lines, street theater, and more.

Text "@pickets" to 23559 for day-of text message alerts.

We will publicly hold Mike Duke accountable for:

The deaths of 120 workers from a fire at Bangladeshi sweatshop producing clothing for Walmart in incredibly unsafe conditions.

Paying Walmart workers poverty wages, forcing many to file for public assistance, and for retaliating against workers when they began to organize and speak out about working conditions.

Mistreatment of workers across Walmart's supply chain, especially warehouse workers and immigrant workers at Walmart suppliers.

I know 11,000 people who aren’t too excited about these “transformations.” Citigroup announced that it will absorb a tax charge of $1 billion for the quarter and eliminate about 11,000 jobs. The third-biggest U.S. banks CEO said that the move was a “logical” step in the bank’s “transformation.” The plan of restructuring also includes branch closings:

The latest eliminations amount to about 4.2 percent of Citigroup’s workforce of 262,000 people at the end of September. The largest share of reductions, about 6,200 jobs, will come from the global consumer-banking business, Citigroup said. The lender expects to sell or scale back consumer operations in Pakistan, Paraguay, Romania, Turkey and Uruguay.

An additional 2,600 jobs will be cut in the operations and technology group and global functions. Citi Holdings, the unit disposing of unwanted assets, will eliminate about 350 positions.

The plan will save about $900 million in 2013, and projected annual savings will exceed $1.1 billion beginning in 2014, the company said. Annual revenue will drop about $300 million, according to the forecast. The $1 billion charge this quarter is before taxes. An additional $100 million of related charges will come in the first half of next year.

Those of you bankers who didn't have your jobs slashed, not to worry about your annual bonus. While it will be cut by 10%, you'll still receive it. What's that, you're crying over the 10%? Oh, good grief!

Video via CBS Channel 13.

UPDATE: Ho no! Poor a glass of milk for the dessert foods that are no more, because it appears that Twinkies, Ho Hos, Ding Dongs, and the rest of Hostess Brands Inc.’s cupboard full of snack foods could really be leaving supermarket shelves for good. Mediation efforts between the company and the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco, and Grain Millers Union—which were supposed to save the company—failed Tuesday, meaning Hostess will return to bankruptcy court Wednesday to make its case of liquidating and selling off its assets. Roughly 18,000 workers at the Texas-based company will lose their jobs.

Twinkies may yet have an infinite shelf life. Hostess Brands Inc. and one of its largest unions have agreed to go into mediation, so the company will stay in business for the time being. Hostess filed for bankruptcy last Friday, claiming a union strike ruined its operations and announcing plans to lay off all 18,500 of its employees. But a bankruptcy judge on the case said the dueling parties have to go through mediation before Hostess Inc. can sell off its assets. It won’t be a cake walk, but at least you can cancel your $1,000 Ho Ho bid on eBay.

NYT:

Judge Robert D. Drain of the Federal Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York pushed hard for the two sides to try one last round of talks. The judge expressed worry that neither side had exhausted all efforts to avoid liquidation. He especially urged the bakery union to seek mediation, suggesting that it might face significant legal claims if Hostess is forced to liquidate.

“I’m giving the union, as well as the debtor and their lenders, a chance to work out their issues in private,” Judge Drain said. “If they don’t take it, it’s not that the issues won’t be worked out. They will, but it will be done in public and in an expensive way.”

While publicly Hostess blames the union for their financial woes, it seems the corporate executives were engaged in some "fuzzy math" behind the scenes.

CNN:

Even as it played the numbers game, Hostess had to face chaos in the corner office at the worst possible time. Driscoll, the CEO, departed suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive” compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

When the Teamsters saw the court motion, Ken Hall, the union’s secretary-treasurer and No. 2 man, was irate. So much, he thought, for what he described as Driscoll’s “happy talk” about “shared sacrifice.”
...

Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer — as the company was crumbling — four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%. (Driscoll had also received a pay raise back then.) The Teamsters saw this as more management shenanigans. “Looting” is how Hall described it in TV interviews.

In the end, Hostess could still go through bankruptcy, and shutter all the plants. However, the only real question at this point is will they actually get away with blaming the employees for their financial shenanigans while the executives sail away in their golden parachutes?

But whatever happens, just remember that this is all the fault of the E-vil unions and their minions, got it?